The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXVIII
NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSERVATION, RECLAMATION, AND USE

Chapter 377
ENERGY RESOURCES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 377.34

377.34 Actions and injunctions by division.—

(1) Whenever it appears that a person is violating, or threatening to violate, any statute of this state with respect to the conservation of oil or gas, or both, or any provision of this law, or any rule, regulation or order made by any act done in the operation of a well producing oil or gas, or storing or recovering natural gas, or by omitting an act required to be done, the division, through its counsel, or the Department of Legal Affairs on its own initiative, may bring suit against such person in the Circuit Court in the County of Leon, state, or in the circuit court in the county in which the well in question is located, at the option of the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs, to restrain such person or persons from continuing such violation or from carrying out the threat of violation. In such suit, the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs, may obtain injunctions, prohibitory and mandatory, including temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions, as the facts may warrant, including, when appropriate, an injunction restraining any person from moving or disposing of illegal oil, illegal gas or illegal product, and any or all such commodities may be ordered to be impounded or placed under the control of a receiver appointed by the court if, in the judgment of the court, such action is advisable.

(2) In the event the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs, should fail to bring suit within 10 days to enjoin any actual or threatened violation of any statute of this state with respect to the conservation of oil and gas, or of any provision of this law, or of any rule, regulation or order made thereunder, then any person or party in interest adversely affected by such violation, and who has notified the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs, in writing of such violation, or threat thereof, and has requested the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs, to sue, may, to prevent any or further violation, bring suit for that purpose in the Circuit Court of the County of Leon, in the state. If, in such suit, the court should hold that injunctive relief should be granted, then the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs, shall be made a party and shall be substituted for the person who brought the suit, and the injunction shall be issued as if the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs, had at all times been the complainant.

(3) If any such defendant cannot be personally served with summons in that county, personal jurisdiction of that defendant in such suit may be obtained by service made upon him or her or any employee or agent of that defendant at any place in Florida and by the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs, mailing copy of the complaint in the action to the defendant at the address of the defendant then recorded with the division, or the Department of Legal Affairs.

History.—s. 30, ch. 22819, 1945; s. 1, ch. 69-350; ss. 11, 25, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 627, ch. 95-148; s. 21, ch. 2013-205.

F.S. 377.34 on Google Scholar

F.S. 377.34 on Casetext

Amendments to 377.34

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 377.34

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 377.34.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

PRESCOTT, a v. RADY CHILDREN S HOSPITAL- SAN DIEGO,, 265 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (S.D. Cal. 2017)

. . . RCHSD argues that California’s survival statute, California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, applies . . . Proc. § 377.34 (“In an action or proceeding by a decedents personal representative or successor in interest . . .

KALANI, v. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, v., 698 F. App'x 883 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 377.34; Cal. Civ. Code. § 52; see also Sullivan v. . . .

WILLIS v. CITY OF FRESNO v., 680 F. App'x 589 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . Code § 377.34. . . . Shortly after entry of judgment, this court held that § 377.34 limits recovery too severely to be consistent . . .

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL v. Dr. P. RUDOLPH,, 845 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2017)

. . . Code § 377.34 ("In an action ... by a decedent’s ... successor in interest ..., the damages recoverable . . . Code § 377.34. . . .

CHAUDHRY v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. v., 751 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34. . . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34. . . . Section 377.34 limits damages in survival actions to the victim’s pre-death economic losses. . . . In cases where the victim dies quickly, there often will be no damage remedy at all under § 377.34. . . . Three of our sister circuits have addressed state laws comparable to § 377.34. . . .

LOPEZ C. v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . . § 377.34), state a claim under Title IX to the extent they seek emotional damages (pain, suffering, . . . Proc. § 377.34. . . .

F. NEGRETE, E. Ow, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, B. v., 927 F. Supp. 2d 870 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . fraudulent, or malevolent manner, the Act also eliminates the damages limitation set forth in section 377.34 . . .

LIN ZHANG, v. AIR CHINA LIMITED,, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . . §§ 377.20, 377.34, 377.60, 377.62. . . . .

M. COTTON, a McCLURE, Sr. v. CITY OF EUREKA, CALIFORNIA, a a, 860 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . . § 377.34 (“§ 377.34”), which expressly disallows damages for pain and suffering. . . . Government Code § 845.6, and that it did not include any arguments regarding the applicability of § 377.34 . . . Proc. §§ 377.30, 377.34. . . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34. Section 1983 does not “address directly the question of damages[.]” . . . Notably, a majority of California district courts faced with the issue of whether § 377.34 precludes . . .

MORALES R. A. M. a v. CITY OF DELANO P., 852 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Pain and Suffering Subsection 377.34 of the California Code of Civil Procedure prohibits recovery for . . . As Plaintiffs note, district courts in California have split on the issue of whether an section 377.34 . . . (E.D.Cal.2002) holding that California’s prohibition of recovery for hedonic damages under section 377.34 . . .

SCHWARTZ v. LASSEN COUNTY LASSEN COUNTY JAIL DETENTION FACILITY, 838 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . Specifically, “[t]he Eastern District has consistently held that § 377.34 [of the California Code of . . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34 (emphasis added). . . .

WALSH, v. TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 827 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

. . . . § 377.34. . . .

TAYLOR, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,, 811 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011)

. . . . § 377.34 (“In an action or proceeding by a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest . . .

HESTON v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. H. C. C. v., 431 F. App'x 586 (9th Cir. 2011)

. . . Code § 377.34; emphasis altered). . . .

ANDERSON, v. THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,, 753 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2010)

. . . . § 377.34 (“In an action or proceeding by a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest . . .

GEORGE, v. SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPT., 732 F. Supp. 2d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . (b) The limitations imposed by Section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the damages recoverable . . . California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 states that: In an action or proceeding by a decedent . . .

P. CONTRERAS, CONTRERAS v. COUNTY OF GLENN Lt. Lt. Lt. Of E. J. A. L. A. a, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . . § 377.34. There is a split of authority on the issue of the applicability of Cal. Civ. . . . . § 377.34., among the District Courts of California. . . . The Eastern District has consistently held that § 377.34 is not inconsistent with Section 1983, and has . . . Conversely, courts in the Southern, Central, and Northern Districts have opted not to apply § 377.34, . . . P.Code § 377.34, the Court in Venerable noted, “The legislature could well conclude that recovery for . . .

P. CONTRERAS, v. COUNTY OF GLENN Lt. Lt. Lt. E. J. A. L. A. a, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . . § 377.34. There is a split of authority on the issue of the applicability of Cal. Civ. . . . . § 377.34., among the District Courts of California. . . . The Eastern District has consistently held that § 377.34 is not inconsistent with Section 1983, and has . . . Conversely, courts in the Southern, Central, and Northern Districts have opted not to apply § 377.34, . . . Code § 377.34, the Court in Venerable noted, “The legislature could well conclude that recovery for the . . .

MAHACH- WATKINS, v. DEPEE, a, 593 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 377.34, [which] does not allow recovery for the decedent’s loss of enjoyment of life, or the decedent . . .

ROE, a CALLAHAN, v. GUSTINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT a a a, 678 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

. . . Provencio found: The deterrent purpose of Section 1983 is satisfied by the fact that Section 377.34 allows . . . that the Estate’s claims for pain and suffering damages and hedonic damages are precluded by Section 377.34 . . . representative of the estate and for a wrongful death action by the decedent’s heirs, Provencio found that § 377.34 . . .

MARTIN v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, a H. Jr., 560 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34 (emphasis added). . . . Section 377.34 does not permit recovery for emotional distress upon the death of the person allegedly . . .

CLAY, Jr. v. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., 540 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

. . . . § 377.34). . . .

BENNETT, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,, 507 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2007)

. . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34 (2007) ("In an action or proceeding by a decedent's personal representative . . . ” damages arising out of a wrongful death action do not include those damages allowed under Section 377.34 . . .

ESTATE HEISER, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, D. v., 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

. . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34 ("In an action or proceeding by a decedent's personal representative ..., . . . ” damages arising out of a wrongful death action do not include those damages allowed under Section 377.34 . . .

K. BOYD, v. CITY OF OAKLAND,, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . The California survivor statute, section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bars successors in a . . . Proc § 377.34. . . . Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, the Estate of Cammerin Boyd— which is . . . Plaintiffs claims of Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress are barred by section 377.34 . . .

HAYNES, A. L. H. a A. L. H. a v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, 423 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2006)

. . . Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34. . . .

J. VENERABLE, Mi Sr. III, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO,, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (E.D. Cal. 2002)

. . . P.Code § 377.34. . . . P.Code § 377.34 does not conflict with § 1983 in case where constitutional violation caused decedent’ . . . Wallenstein, 769 F.2d 1173, 1187-90 (7th Cir.1985) (refusing to apply statute similar to § 377.34 in§ . . . P.Code § 377.34. . Of course, there is also the deterrence provided by the criminal law. . . .

MADDUX, v. PHILADELPHIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (S.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . suffering damages and do not survive the death of a decedent under the California survival statute [C.C.P. 377.34 . . .

A. SPOSATO, v. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS, CORP., 188 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 1999)

. . . Second, the majority misconstrues California’s survival statute, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34, which limits-the . . . Under the plain language of section 377.34, Mr. Sposato is limited to the loss that Ms. . . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34. EDS would have this court deny Ms. . . . As presently enacted, Section 377.34 provides that virtually all causes of action survive a decedent’ . . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34. . . . Consistent with the apparent intent of the Legislature, California courts have interpreted Section 377.34 . . .

JACKSON, v. EAST BAY HOSPITAL,, 980 F. Supp. 1341 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . . § 377.34. . . . However, section 377.34 specifically excludes a survivor’s recovery of damages for pain, suffering, or . . . Thus, plaintiff may be able to recover those damages allowed under section 377.34 as well as sections . . .

KUEHN v. CHILDRENS HOSPITAL, LOS ANGELES, 119 F.3d 1296 (7th Cir. 1997)

. . . Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34; Sullivan v. . . .

GARCIA v. WHITEHEAD,, 961 F. Supp. 230 (C.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . deterrent purpose of section 1983 is satisfied by the fact that California Code of Civil Procedure, section 377.34 . . . California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 provides, . . . .

AMBRUSTER, v. MONUMENT REALTY FUND VIII LTD., 963 F. Supp. 862 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . California’s survivorship statute is found at Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34. . . .

In AIRCRASH DISASTER NEAR ROSELAWN, INDIANA ON OCTOBER, 948 F. Supp. 747 (N.D. Ill. 1996)

. . . survival of certain actions but barring recovery for decedent’s pain and suffering); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.34 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. CITY OF OAKLAND,, 915 F. Supp. 1074 (N.D. Cal. 1996)

. . . However, section 377.34 limits the recoverable damages to loss or damages the decedent incurred before . . . Finally, having found that section 377.34 is inconsistent with the purposes of section 1983 of the federal . . . Section 377.34 permits economic damages and punitive damages and to that extent it is not inconsistent . . . summary judgment and holds that the California survivorship statutes as provided in sections 377.20 and 377.34 . . .